Research Animals

Displaying 91 - 100 of 139
Titlesort descending Summary
ON THE "NECESSARY SUFFERING" OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS
Opening The Laboratory Door: National and International Legal Responsibilities for the Use of Animals in Scientific Research--An


Despite the increased availability of alternatives to the animal test model, laws and policies continue to be used as shields to justify the scientific use of animals in jurisdictions across the world. This article examines the legislative framework for animal research in Australia with a specific focus on the state of New South Wales. It also examines emerging international principles for the use of animals in scientific research.
OR - Education - 337.300. Refusal to dissect animal; alternative materials or methods of learning This Oregon law allows a student in grade kindergarten through grade 12 to refuse to dissect any vertebrate or invertebrate animal. A school district that includes dissection as part of its coursework shall permit students to demonstrate competency in the coursework through alternative materials or methods of learning that do not include the dissection of animals. Further, a teacher may not discriminate against a student or lower the grade of a student for not participating in the dissection of an animal.
OR - Testing, animal - 646A.009. Sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues.
Overview of Animal Testing in Commercial Products


The overview summary introduces the topic of animal testing within the commercial products industry. The article introduces a number of federal agencies responsible for monitoring and regulating animal testing. In addition, the overview explores the Animal Welfare Act along with some of the most traditional animal testing methods. The overview also reveals some recently developed animal testing alternatives and attempts to further explain the complex controversy that surrounds animal testing.
Overview of Medical Research Animals This overview examines various federal regulations on animal biomedical testing within the United States as well as the industry’s standards and trends. The application of the federal Animal Welfare Act and regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are discussed. The importance of self-regulation mainly through the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) is also outlined.
PA - Education - § 15-1523. Pupil's right of refusal; animal dissection This Pennsylvania law states that public or nonpublic school pupils from kindergarten through grade twelve may refuse to dissect, vivisect, incubate, capture or otherwise harm or destroy animals or any parts thereof as part of their course of instruction. Schools must notify pupils and their parents/guardians of the right to decline participation. A pupil who chooses to refrain from participation or observation shall be offered an alternative education project. No pupil shall be discriminated against based on his or her decision to exercise rights under this law.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. Plaintiff-appellee, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), began this case by issuing eight public records requests to defendant-appellant Louisiana State University (LSU). PETA made these records seeking veterinary care and disposition records for birds used in LSU’s laboratories. For the first seven of these requests, LSU did not produce the records, so PETA filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Public Records Law. LSU denied PETA’s allegations and did not produce the records, so PETA made an eighth records request, which LSU responded to with an assertion that the requested records were exempt from disclosure. After a hearing, the trial court issued an oral ruling in favor of PETA and granted some of the records that PETA requested. LSU appealed. On appeal, the court considered whether the records sought by PETA were covered under the Public Records Law. The court first found that LSU qualifies as a research facility under the Animal Welfare Act, and needs to comply with federal law and maintain and produce records relating to research animals, so long as the records being sought would not be unduly burdensome to produce. The court held that the portions of the judgment ordering LSU to produce veterinary daily observation reports, veterinary daily health check records, and other veterinary records were affirmed. However, some of the information sought, including private communications between LSU employees, trapping records, and some videographic records, were considered unduly burdensome to compel LSU to produce. The court also amended a portion of one of the requests to make it more specific and narrow the documentation that LSU would need to produce. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. This case involves a dispute under the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S. 44:1 et seq., concerning public records requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Louisiana State University (LSU) for documents related to ongoing research involving wild songbirds conducted by Dr. Christine Lattin. PETA sought various records, including veterinary care records, video recordings of experiments, and communications related to the amendment of a local bird ordinance. LSU initially withheld the records, arguing that some were exempt under federal law or protected as patentable or licensable research under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b). The district court ruled in favor of PETA, ordering the production of most requested records, but the court of appeal partially reversed, finding that some video recordings were exempt under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b) as they pertained to ongoing research. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that LSU failed to meet its burden of proving the records were properly withheld, emphasizing the broad public right to access under the Louisiana Constitution and Public Records Law. The Court rejected LSU’s arguments that the records were exempt under federal law or as ongoing research, except for unpublished video recordings, which remained protected. The decision underscores the principle that access to public records can only be denied when a law specifically and unequivocally provides otherwise.
Peru - Cruelty - Ley 30407, 2015 Ley 30407, is the statute of animal protection and welfare. It sets the guidelines for the protection of vertebrate domestic and wild animals kept in captivity and against abuse and cruelty caused directly or indirectly by humans. This law also promotes respect for the life and well-being of animals through education as well as the participation in the promotion of animal protection of entities of the public and private sector. Some of the topics that this law regulates include: responsibilities of society and the government towards animals; protection, possession and handling of animals; animal research and experimentation; and euthanasia of companion animals and wildlife kept in captivity. Ley 30407 has 36 articles in 8 chapters. As a result of its promulgation, the previous animal welfare act, together with Article 450-A of the criminal code, were repealed. Bullfighting, cockfighting and other activities declared of cultural character by authorized authority are considered exceptions to this law.

Pages